Interim guidance from EHRC is out

[impossibletoday]

https://x.com/HeadWarriorTWM/status/1915853104421167211?t=qbUrcHVdtPyqVB1uZ5depA&s=19

I think the consultation is on how to make the judgement work in practice.

Eg - should best practice be 20% unisex toilets? Or something different? Should organisations employing over x number of people be compelled to provide unisex toilets. Etc.

Maybe also whether employers who employ transgender people would be OK to exempt them from the sex specific parts of a job (eg a transgender woman should not be asked to strip search men who do not have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.)

It definitely won’t be ‘tell us how this ruling affects you so we can water it down’.

We are seeing mass narcissism playing out.

Drama, hyperbole, women's distress, reaction, attention.

It's all supply.

We've created a fertile climate to honour narcissim and disordered thinking.

And somehow, in the past twenty years, society has carefully and deliberately forgotten that Fetishistic transvestism is still a disorder that relies on non consensual participation. And that exhibitionism is a fairly common paraphilia. And that women are human, and have equal rights in law.

All the Supreme Court has done is acknowledge that simple fact. And look at the rage that's spilled out.

“We will be seeking views from affected stakeholders.”

I’ll be interested to hear NHS Fife and the Darlington Trust’s contributions!

As an affected stakeholder I'm more than happy to write in and tell them thanks. Do we have any idea how we will be able to do that?

Your crusade has allowed Falkner to destroy everything that anchored my world

It’s an interesting component of psychology the way there has to be personification of the “destroyer of worlds”, and it’s usually a woman. JK Rowling. Now Falkner.

Driving Licence form D1 no longer seems to ask M/F
I've just filled one in there is a mention about gender in the accompanying booklet but no box to tick on the form

I guess it's pointless recording meaningless data.

I wonder how many transgender women will have a rethink.
Mens jeans 👖 with decent pockets are more practical than women's jeans with poxy pockets.

Which them makes me wonder if Islas got the balls to still be running around in her pink leggings, in her male prison 🤔

I plan to mention how intimidating and potentially dangerous it is for women to have to enforce the toilet/changing rules themselves when transwomen insist on coming in (as evidenced from the fact TW think women are fine with it because we’re too intimidated to challenge them), and to flag that the onus should be on service providers, employers, etc to ensure women feel safe by communicating the rules for facilities up front.

I will probably also say something about the fact gender critical women are still scared to speak up for their rights given all the threats and intimidation, and that it isn’t fair to expect women to openly say if they want/need single-sex facilities in the current climate, so employers, etc shouldn’t rely on consulting staff in a public forum to find out what they think, as this indirectly discriminates against women and those with gender critical beliefs.

No, you can have a group with two PCs where one is a subsection of the other. E.g. lesbian women. So women of the lesbian variety.

This only just occurred to me today, in light of the EHRC interim guidance, but is it unlawful to have an association for lesbian and bisexual women, but which excludes straight women? Lesbians and bisexual women don’t share a sexual orientation, so does that mean you can’t rely on the exemption which allows an association to be created for people who share a protected characteristic?

In that instance they’d share the sexual orientation of being same sex attracted.

This is the definition in the Act:

“(1)Sexual orientation means a person's sexual orientation towards—
(a)persons of the same sex,
(b)persons of the opposite sex, or
(c)persons of either sex.

(2)In relation to the protected characteristic of sexual orientation—
(a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person who is of a particular sexual orientation;
(b)a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons who are of the same sexual orientation.”

Lesbians and bisexual women share a same-sex orientation, surely?

There are bound to be some wrinkles to iron out, but people are really reaching for problems. The guidance is super-clear; the Supreme Court judgment's clear; the EA2010's clear.

The wrinkles, I think, will come from the EA guidance notes, which say things like limiting or modifying access to, or excluding a trans person from, the separate or single-sex service of the gender in which they present will be unlawful if you cannot show such action is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

The SC did not contradict the Act, but the guidance notes issued by the govt and the EHRC do conflict in some ways with the ruling. I still think these will turn out to be minor issues.

Surely lesbians have the orientation described in paragraph (a) which bisexual women have the orientation described in paragraph (c)?

that’s interesting about the explanatory notes to the Act, did the SC not deal with that in the judgment? You’d think it would be quite an obvious point

Sorry, typo in the first sentence, should have read “lesbians have the orientation described in paragraph (a), while bisexual women have the orientation described in paragraph (c)?”

So, for instance (by my reading, and IANAL), you have a women's knitting circle with more than 25 members. Kellie Maloney wants to join. You must either [a] take a view that knitting isn't a sex-specific activity, so must include men no matter how they 'identify' or [b] show that the deeply personal conversations which take place while knitting are the real value of the group, and such conversations would be inhibited by the presence of male people.

It's common sense.

Trans-identifying females who look and sound very male are likely to be the thorniest issue, I think, after the angry TWs have calmed down.

I'm pretty sure you could legitimately have a group for:

a] Same-sex attracted women, including those attracted to both sexes;
b] Women who are exclusively attracted to women;
c] Only women who are attracted to both sexes;

d] Same-sex attracted men, including bisexual men;
e] Exclusively gay men;
f] Only bisexual men;

g] LGB of both sexes;
h] Exclusively same-sex attracted men and women;
i] Exclusively bisexual men and women;

j] Transbians and TW-attracted women, though you couldn't justify this on sex grounds and would have to be prepared for others to apply;
k] Transgay and TM-attracted men, same caveat;
l] All LGBT.

Not terribly restrictive, is it?

(edited to invent 'transgay' although I bet it's already a term)

That's a choice for those particular women, they choose that. That doesn't mean it's safe for all women.

Love this, and it's very true. Sorry but we really need to bring asylums back or at least mental health hospitals where people can get the help they need instead of destroying their bodies for a fantasy. It's not our fault that people that are unwell decide to embark on this and then complain when they are rightfully told it's not the law to breach the spaces for the female sex.

Very good!

👏👏👏

There is only so much women can take before we push back, and push back we have. We've had enough. We have had e-fucking-nough. That's it. It's that simple. And we won't stop fighting until every single male born person is out of all female spaces, no matter where or what country.

Copying from elsewhere:

It is explained there how this could be lawful discrimination.
It's so a rape support group can lawfully exclude all those 6 foot tall, bearded muscley passing transmen (which gender ideologues have all apparently got as friends ) because the traumatised women in the group would perceive them as male and be triggered.

If they (meaning trans men) pass so convincingly, it can traumatise rape survivors (women and girls). So excluding trans men IN THIS SITUATION is a PROPORTIONATE RESPONSE.

So yes, it is workable.

We are not 'cis'. Please stop using that offensive and insulting slur.

And there is a difference between being "allowed" and wanting to. It's called choice. And having the choice of single sex spaces - that our foremother feminists worked so hard to get for us. For the likes of you to spit on their graves and tell them they wasted their time.

isn’t fair to expect women to openly say if they want/need single-sex facilities in the current climate, so employers, etc shouldn’t rely on consulting staff in a public forum to find out what they think,

I've long thought that these consultations/surveys should be anonymous. You're never going to know what people really think if there are negative consequences for saying it.

I made this point but everyone seemed to think I was overthinking it. I hope this isn't used as a means of attacking the LGB Alliance again.